From a Melbourne rail professional who some say, has too much time on his hands, selected news and commentary to help preserve our enduring institutions and values, advance economic liberalism, social conservatism and other, sundry matters ... Online since 1999 ...

Monday, May 04, 2009

... In 1970, Andrew Hacker a political scientist published a book entitled, “The end of the American Era” where he confidently predicted American decline citing poor fiscal policies, excessive individualism, and imperial overstretch. Sound familiar? … That is akin to where we are now, post-Iraq: calmer, more pragmatic and with a military -- especially a Navy -- that, while in relative decline, is still far superior to any other on Earth. Near the end of the Cold War, the U.S. Navy had almost 600 ships; it is down to 280. But in aggregate tonnage that is still more than the next 17 navies combined …

Apart from the perceived China threat, the Rudd Governments added validation for the planned boost to ADF funding and acquisitions, is the premise that American military might will weaken. Moreover, that the U.S. will find itself, "preoccupied and stretched in some parts of the world such that its ability to shift attention and project power into other regions, when it needs to, is constrained”.

Can we deduce form this that America would be too constrained to shield Australia from regional threats? Or more broadly, that the U.S. would be unable or disinclined to “continue to play over the very long term the strategic role that it has undertaken since the end of World War II?"

I beg to differ. Economic cycles come and go, some worse than others, deficits hover, foreign and domestic crises and the ongoing process of globalization will provide challenges, yet neither of these will counteract the America’s core advantages - its sheer present and potential dynamism, one borne of longstanding political and economic liberalism (that’s right Mr. Rudd), its size, wealth, competitiveness and human capacity. In the words of Robert J. Lieber:

Over the years, America’s staying power has been regularly and chronically underestimated—by condescending French and British statesmen in the nineteenth century, by German, Japanese, and Soviet militarists in the twentieth, and by homegrown prophets of doom today. The critiques come and go. The object of their contempt never does.

America remains the principle provider of public good and keeper of the peace and it will continue to do so. For the 21st century to have any chance of being peaceful, it must continue having a rule based international order, which cannot exist, in the absence of U.S. global strategic power. Of course, America’s detractors will continue dishing out the verbiage of impending doom and past hegemony. Case in point, in spite of volumes literature predicting its fall, the fundamental foundations of U.S. power and hegemony remain rock solid and compared to its nearest rivals and including the basket case we term the EU, there remains vast gaps in education quality, military spending, technology, and economic activity, even if the latter – economy - be solely based on potentials in times of economic turmoil.

Declinism is in the air. The latest conventional wisdom is that the combination of the Iraq war, the military and economic rise of Asia, and the steep recession in the West has chastened America, ending its period of dominance in world affairs. It is time for us to be humble.

There is a lot of truth to this, but it goes too far. For decline itself -- as a concept -- is overrated. Britain's Royal Navy went into relative decline beginning in the 1890s, even as Great Britain remained powerful enough to help save the West in two world wars over the next half-century.

The proper analogy may be the Indian Mutiny in 1857 and 1858, after the orientalists and other pragmatists in the British power structure, who wanted to leave traditional India as it was, lost sway to Evangelical and Utilitarian reformers who wanted to more forcefully Christianize India -- to make it in a values sense more like England. The reformers were good people: They helped abolish the slave trade and tried to do the same with the hideous practice of widow-burning. But their attempts to bring the fruits of Western civilization, virtuous as they were, to a far-off corner of the world played a role in a violent revolt against imperial authority.

Yet the debacle did not signal the end of the British Empire, which expanded for nearly another century. Rather, it signaled a transition away from an ad hoc imperium fired occasionally by an ill-disciplined lust to impose its values abroad -- and to a calmer, more pragmatic and soldiering empire built on trade, education and technology.

That is akin to where we are now, post-Iraq: calmer, more pragmatic and with a military -- especially a Navy -- that, while in relative decline, is still far superior to any other on Earth. Near the end of the Cold War, the U.S. Navy had almost 600 ships; it is down to 280. But in aggregate tonnage that is still more than the next 17 navies combined. Our military secures the global commons to the benefit of all nations. Without the U.S. Navy, the seas would be unsafe for merchant shipping, which, in an era of globalization, accounts for 90 percent of world trade. We may not be able to control events on land in the Middle East, but our Navy and Air Force control all entry and exit points to the region. The multinational anti-piracy patrols that have taken shape in the Strait of Malacca and the Gulf of Aden have done so under the aegis of the U.S. Navy. Sure the economic crisis will affect shipbuilding, meaning the decline in the number of our ships will continue, and there will come a point where quantity affects quality. But this will be an exceedingly gradual transition, which we will assuage by leveraging naval allies such as India and Japan …

As I have written many times over in different guises, American hegemony may be in a period of recalibration but it is far from over. This is especially so in a military gist. What is more, even if challenged, like times past, America will rise and for this, we should be pleased. No, U.S. Declinism theories are nothing new. In 1970, Andrew Hacker a political scientist published a book entitled, “The end of the American Era” where he confidently predicted American decline citing poor fiscal policies, excessive individualism, and imperial overstretch. Sound familiar?

I remain in favour of Australia muscling up its offensive capabilities, but to suggest that we must do so to counter a weakening America is premature of not completely incorrect. The U.S. will be there for Australia if in need, the Obama victory, a ballooning deficit, and the financial crises are leading many a foreign policy and economic pundits to assume that America is finished. For those like myself, proponents for, and advocates of a strong and decisive America such events though concerning, beckon for a little perspective.

America may be down but its capacity to regenerate and re-invent is driven by a broad range of structural advantages that most other nations can only dream of.

No comments:

About Me

Generally, I'm known to most nearly all as Otto, my everyday designation, though my birth name is Ottavio. In addition to what I have stated in "about blog", I am partial to free market driven economies, free trade principles and the freedom for individuals to structure their own lives without Government interference. I would staunchly advocate that the "individual" is greater than any collective. I am socially conservative and support traditional morality and social structure. I champion fiscally conservative Governments - economic liberalism. However, not the subject of this blog, I also campaign for the continuance and preservation of global American dominance. I enjoy writing about that which interests me; I do so to impart knowledge and understanding, and to put both an individual spin and my own distinctive sensibility and perception on my chosen subject matter.

About blog

This blog both embraces and advocates a, pro-small government and, pro-free market approach to Australian public policy and the views. It rejects the contemporary notion that government is all-powerful, and that it can solve all our problems. It rejects the nanny state, excessive government interference in our lives, more taxes, more regulation and more public spending. It rejects the present Australian (Labor-Agrarian-Socialist-Independent) government coupled with its pompous dependency on the economically shallow Greens. It embraces a political philosophy, social and educational regime and/or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to change, for changes sake to the established order. A view that recognises and defends the connection existing between members of an ethnic group based on shared ancestry, culture, religion, history and language. A view that questions political correctness. A view that recognises and defends our masculine identity as men or feminine identity as women, our role as fathers and mothers or husbands and wives within a traditional family based on a heterosexual union. A view that recognises and defends marital love and paternal & maternal love.

Guest Posting

The L Party is an evolving project, a work in progress with the aim of establishing a dedicated and broad base. To this end, I reach out to anyone interested, be it readers, journalists, academics or just interested folk thinking about contributing on a regular or, even one off basis as a guest poster. No blog can reach full potential without the participation of others. Submit a request to write via the email address mail on my profile page.

Disclaimer

The information and data contained in this blog has been collected, validated and expressed with due skill and attention and is provided as general information to promote a cause important to the author. No representations or warranties of any kind are made, express or implied about the completeness, accuracy or reliability of its contents or information, products and services or related graphics contained within it.

Any reliance placed on such information is therefore at own risk. In no event will the author we be liable for any loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from loss of data or profits arising out of or in connection with the use of this blog.

Through this blog you are able to link to other websites which are not under the control of the author nor has the author have any control over the nature, content and availability of those sites. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.

Every effort is made to keep the blog up and running smoothly. However, the author takes no responsibility for and will not be liable for the blog being temporarily unavailable due to technical issues beyond the author’s control.

For the purpose of this disclaimer the term's, "the author", and/or "Ottavio Marasco" and/or "Otto Marasco" are one and the same.

If the provision of any of the information contained in this disclaimer is unenforceable or illegal for any reason then the remaining information will remain in full force and effect notwithstanding that invalidity or unenforceability.

This is a free speech zone

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
These words were first used by Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G. Tallentyre in The Friends of Voltaire (1906). They were not a quote, but a paraphrase of Voltaire's attitudes, based on his Essay on Tolerance where he asserts: "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too".
Its ultimate origin may lie in a letter to M. le Riche (February 6, 1770): "Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." Source